Lobo & Guns In Parks

There are two extraordinary items in the agenda papers for Tuesday night. One concerns the ‘guns in the parks’ episode and the other the anti-semitism claims against Lobo. That both of these issues should occupy so much of council time, and expense, is in our view, a clear indication of how dysfunctional and politically driven Glen Eira Council is.

Both of these items feature some ‘unusual’ new tactics:

For the first time in living memory, Council has published the ‘privileged and confidential’ legal advice that it sought externally. Why?

For the first time in living memory Council is seeking that Police ‘answer’ for the guns in parks issue via a ‘community forum’. Why?

THE LOBO AFFAIR

Several things stand out immediately in this item:

The brevity of the Burke report and lack of ‘direction’ from administration – ie washing their hands of the matter and hence not endorsing the Lipshutz, Hyams ‘instigated’ motion?

The undoubtedly costly ‘legal advice’ says ‘bugger all’. It merely outlines the current legislation. More significantly it questions why Council has not undertaken ‘internal resolution’ processes which are part of its Code of Conduct. Another ‘slap in the face’ to councillors?

How on earth can this councillor group expect decent legal advice when it has not supplied the lawyers with any ‘evidence’ of the alleged offences? This makes a mockery of the allegations in the first place and secondly shows how incompetent these councillors have been to begin with.

Not only was the original Request for a Report vague and ‘general’ but so badly worded that all the lawyers could do was respond in ‘general terms’. What a waste of public money!

What remains to be seen is whether these 8 paragons of virtue will take this matter further and whether ratepayers can expect to fork out thousands more to satisfy what we believe to be the political machinations of several councillors.

GUNS IN PARKS

Another example of ‘damage control’?

Another example of ‘passing the buck’ – this time to the Police?

Is this another example of a very neat sleight of hand at best or straight out contradiction at worst? – ‘Council’s conditions of use do not allow events to involve firearms’ AND ‘Council’s relationship is with the event organiser, not with those who supply services to the event (whether security, seating, tents, audio equipment, etc’)

Who exactly are these ‘public’ anyway?

How arrogant! Does Council really expect the Police to admit that their forces are not adequately ‘trained’ or ‘capable of protecting all members of the community’!!!!!!!!!

Related

26 Responses to “Lobo & Guns In Parks”

question asked by:
Ms
Pennicuik
Directed to:
Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water
As
ked on:
11
November 2015
ANSWER:
The Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) is continuing to work closely with the
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust on the implementation of recommendations made by the Auditor General last
year.
DELWP i
s also working on
recommendation
15
for longer term action to revoke the Crown grant and introduce
new legislation for the future management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

And once the Crown Grant is revoked, is a Committee of Management to be appointed to govern the reserve in accordance with it’s 3 purposes (racecourse, public park and public recreation ground) as per the Auditor General’s recommendation or is the Victorian Public to get shafted again by formally granting the Racing Industry that which Government mismanagement has already allowed them to take without any legal right.

I am furious that one single cent has been spent on this rubbish when there are so many more important issues that should be occupying council to the full. How about doing something on planning and changing the awful zones? How about fixing up the lack of consulation that goes on year after year? How about reducing the secrecy that characterises every single thing this council does? Stop playing your bloody stupid political games and if you can’t do that then get out.

Until such time as Council publishes the resolution it passed at a closed meeting held on 20 October 2015, the evidence is that the meeting was in breach of LGA. It wasn’t about council property but about a group of people who wanted a Permit to use Council land and what conditions would be imposed on their use. The Minutes tacked on a second and retrospective justification in acknowledgement the “council property” argument wasn’t good enough. Council could simply publish the conditions it imposed. After all, JCCV executive director thinks having armed guards in public places is “no big deal”.

I read through the officer report concerning the ongoing dummy-spit against Cr Lobo, and while the can is being kicked further down the road, it at least points out that councillors haven’t followed their own processes, and have supplied zero information upon which to base any complaint. It confirms what I suspected, which is that councillors have ignored their own Code.

Curiously the lawyer mentions s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which on the face of it isn’t applicable. The alleged unlawful act cannot be said to be done because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

I do wonder how much of our money Council has spent on this, since allegedly it must “endeavour to ensure that public resources are used prudently and solely in the public interest”

Lobo’s comments that unleashed the unconscionable Hyams/Lipshutz outbursts were made at an Ordinary (ie. open to the public) Council Meeting. Council makes a tape recording of every Ordinary Meeting and therefore both the tape and a transcript should have been supplied along with a request for a legal assessment.

Instead we get an external legal firm asked to supply course of action options on an alleged breach. Something which should have been known by the Administration (which includes at least one corporate lawyer) and Councillors since the laws/standards/rules that have supposedly been breached are those that apply to them all in undertaking their respective roles.

If Council was not so dysfunction, they’d have realised they have only two options
1) Add to the cost of the Aministrations time dealing with the external lawyers to cost charged by the external lawyers and ask the 8 Councillors to split the bill, and
2) Close the door once and for all on the whole sorry saga that reflects so badly on them all.

Not a great start by the legal fraternity used by council when they can’t even get the motion correct. Anyone notice how the word ‘alleged’ crept into the cited motion? A few other problems exist in this advice. They’ve changed the terms of B to “the alleged false and damaging remarks”. As far as I’m concerned it is highly debatable whether this is the same as the motion which said “widely viewed as false and damaging to the repution of council’. The reputation of council in the eyes of countless residents is already beyond redemption. Then how do you measure damage except in financial terms? Council has already issued a letter about Okotel where she was accused of making false statements about a meeting concerning grade separation. Many people such as Labor supporters would see her comments as damaging, untrue, and jumping on the political liberal bandwagon. Maybe these hired lawyers could also start writing expensive letters about what to do with Karina? I suggest send her to Coventry and then all other councillors should join her and pay back the cost of this advice by a rate rebate and then include the money spent on the untruths that made up council’s eleven cents flyer. That in itself has done more damage to council’s reputation than anything Lobo has done. Self inflicted wounds from a bunch of cretins.

Jeez, another display of Council cover up. Instead of making publicly available the motion passed in secret that permitted Guns in Parks and the Risk Managment Assessment presented at that meeting, what do we get. We get a Community Forum, presented by a Police Officer (with a rank of Superintendent or higher) concerning the policing of events.

Earth to Councillors – the answers to the questions/matters raised in Appendix A were and are known to residents. They were raised to highlight the inadequacy of your knowledge and failure to act in the interests of ALL (rather than a vested minority interest).

When are you going to actually address issue and provide the residents with the information they seek. Stop claiming your lips are sealed because of confidentiality, it’s a blatant croc. You, Councillors indulged in a self nobbling exercise when you decided to make the whole Guns in Parks issue confidential. There is nothing, other than yourselves, preventing you from reversing that decision (only needs 5) and providing the information being sought by residents.

It is not short of criminal that ratepayer funds are used to engage and possibly further personal vendettas. Newton squandered hundreds of thousands in his personal vendetta with Penhalluriack. Now we are faced with another battle that could lead to the squandering of more money. If Lipshutz and Hyams are so offended then let them pursue their own legal battles. They are lawyers after all. If Lobo is so offended by the treatment meted out to him, then he should also pursue his own avenues of defence without ratepayers supporting the colossal egos and political ambitions of these men. What is very sad is that 7 other councillors have decided to join in this useless exercise.

Governance, the issue raised in this post, must be improved in Glen Eira. The Review of LGA is critical to ensure that Councils improve their governance performance. Lots of people made Submission to that Review. Here is one short, sweet and to the point:

The Local Government Act should make it mandatory that:
· All councils have Notice of Motion;
· All councils have ‘dissent from the chair’;
· All councils adhere to regular rotation of Audit Committee membership and council committee membership;
· All councils present live broadcasts of meetings;
· All councils publish agendas and full minutes for advisory committee meetings and that these meetings be open to the public;
· All CEO positions be advertised;
· No CEO be appointed for more than 2 consecutive contracts (ie a limit of ten years);
· Staff Code of Conduct be published;
· Key Performance Indicators for CEO and senior staff be made public;
· Minutes to include how each Councillor voted;
· The provision of open, timely and evidence based public consultation on major issues, including the public work shopping of significant issues;
· Community representation on all advisory committees;
· Public questions answered by individual Councillors at start of meetings if question addressed to them;
· Ensure that budgets reflect community views.

Glen Eira Council has also made a Submisssio to LGA Review, which was written by none other than Robyn Taft, Corporate Counsel, on behalf of Glen Eira Council. The full Submission can be read on http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission?preview=true item 150. Clearly, its content has been approved by Councillors with. I believe, a lot of input from our 3 lawyers Crs Lippshutz, Hyams, and Okotel. Just read it and compare to the above suggestions.

That’s a great set of aspirations, very compact too. It doesn’t address all of my concerns though, particularly concerning delegation and accountability. Most council decisions are actually done through delegation. There needs to be statutory mechanisms to ensure that staff making decisions under delegation are accountable for them and that the process is transparent.

Further, that council must have in place processes for regularly auditing whether the decision-makers do actually have the authority for the decisions they made, that decisions being made with delegated authority are in accordance with any conditions in the Deed of Delegation, and that the decisions are consistent with council policies including responses to public questions.

A related area that really needs to be cleaned up is the distinction between council and council staff. Council staff are NOT council. Staff decisions might be deemed to be decisions of council but only if that power, duty or function has been delegated to them. Under no circumstances should delegation be used as a means of avoiding scrutiny.

Submission 150 is claimed to come from Glen Eira City Council, and yet is written by a member of staff. Did she have delegated authority? Where is the council resolution that establishes the views expressed in the document really are the views of Council? This appears to be yet another example of failing to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the Local Government Act.

Anonymous 7 points out something I noticed at the time of the original request for a report, which is that there has been no allegation of racism. One of two claims made by the proponents [and there are 8 of them] is that some remarks are “widely viewed as racist” by fellow Australians who believe the remarks were directed at them. That is self-evidently preposterous.

Second claim is that statements made to media are “widely viewed as false and damaging”. Council isn’t claiming the statements are false and damaging—only that they are “widely viewed” as such. Council is going to have to spell out which statements it believes are false; show that damage has been done to Council; and show the connection between the statements and the damage.

There is at least some karma amongst all this. Karina, who championed this outrageous abuse of resources in her support for Cr Pilling’s motion, has now been accused of making statements concerning Skyrail that are false. Will she push for a report on what sanctions should be applied to her? Cr Pilling made the claim, but hasn’t backed it up with supporting evidence. How typical of the way our council “works”.

God damn it. Is this a coincidence that Karina and Lobo are hassled in a way to show that they are different from every one else? Just asking since Glen Eira residents voted them for a purpose? Karina is the only one who is liked in her award. Pilling and Esakoff have knowingly tarnished their name.has lost his credibility. Due to Karina being a liberal, is she used and confused? Will she stand for Council elections again. Will she stand on her feet and breakout from the web where master spider resides and eat any flies coming in?

There are 2 wrotten apples in Glen Eira that need to be shown the door by voters and the gallery can see them bending and talking perhaps prompting strategy. Hackel and Jackal R

None of you have worked out what is really going on here. It is obvious that a certain Councillor has upset all Councillors with remarks made in public, but more importantly, remarks made behind closed doors.

Give us some credit will you Conspiracy. Of course we realise that what is said in open Council Meetings is a the tip of the iceberg compared to what goes on behind closed doors.

Proof of this is presented at every Council Meeting by Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling continually and openly showing their disdain for others. Watch Delahunty whenever Okotel has the floor. Also tally up the unsubstantiated censures given to given to particular Councillors while other remain uncensured for blatant breaches.

Such atrocious and public displays say much about the incumbents and their ability to govern in a bipartisan manner that benefits the community.

Every time a complaint against Council is investigated by Local Government Inspectorate, the result is the same. LGI says “insufficient evidence” to prosecute, but criticizes councillor behaviour and identifies Council has issues with regard to transparency and accountability. No improvement is required to be made, LGI walks away satisfied, and the cycle repeats.

anon 6.05 you don’t get it. I will spell it out for you. A Councillor has allegedly spoken in open Council in a manner which is considered by many to be Anti- Semitic. Eight Councillors are obviously upset by these remarks and I put it to you that what was said in open Council by a certain Councillor is the tip of the Iceberg. No Councillor should make any racist remarks and get away with it. The Councillor should make an unqualified apology and this will allow all to move on. As for all the other matters you mention you are correct but nothing is worse than open Racism in the form of Anti- Semitism.

Speculation is NOT an appropriate basis for making allegations about anybody, especially if they involve highly loaded and politically charged terms such as anti-semitism. I’ll point out, again, that our councillors haven’t made any allegations themselves, at least not yet. They instead used the expression “widely viewed”, referring to a subset of people they associate with.

Today’s Crikey has an article concerning Sharri Markson being sued for defamation by NSW politican Shaoquett Moselmane for labelling him as anti-semitic in response to a speech he gave in Parliament. One aspect that deserves attention is the chilling effect such labelling has on discussion of policy.

Here is what was said on the night from our post of 17th December 2015 –

LOBO: said that ‘security is important’ but ‘above all the communities have to integrate’ and if ‘communities work in a vacuum then this type of thing will happen’. Stated that the government protects everyone including Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff – ‘they have the best protection’ but ‘if you do these type of things people will target them more’. Stated that council shouldn’t be involved in security because ‘that is not our business’ and didn’t need to be ‘discussed with the police at all’. ‘I could have had a gun because I was called a terrorist in 2010’ (Note: this comment undoubtedly refers to an email by Lipshutz to Lobo asking if the bank that Lobo claims to have worked for in the Middle East was responsible for channelling funds to terrorist organisations). ‘I don’t have one so you don’t have to be worried’.

HYAMS: said that it ‘sounds uncomfortably like’ because the Jewish community ‘protects itself it is asking to be attacked’. He found Lobo’s comments ‘extremely disturbing’ and like ‘comments that have been made all through history by people with very bad character’. He ‘urged’ Lobo to ‘clarify what he meant by that’.

LOBO: said that ‘if you focus on yourself’ and that ‘you are the only one’ then ‘you are drawing attraction to others’.

HYAMS: ‘that comment shows such a lack of understanding’ of history that ‘it blows my mind’. Said that the ‘only reason’ that Jews are a ‘greater target’ than other groups is ‘because it draws attention to itself’. Wanted to know ‘what sort of a country are we living in’ when an ‘elected councillors’ can say ‘the reason you’re attacked is your fault’? ‘There are thousands of years of anti-semitism’ and the ‘Jewish community doesn’t ask’ for ‘what happens’ and they attempt to ‘protect themselves against what happens to it’. ‘That is probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard said in a council chamber’. Asked Pilling to ask Lobo to ‘withdraw’.